View Poll Results: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Upon it becoming public knowledge.

    0 0%
  • Upon indictment/charges filed.

    1 3.70%
  • Upon conviction.

    20 74.07%
  • Other. (Please elaborate)

    6 22.22%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

  1. #21
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    11-18-15 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    440

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I am very much of the mind that if we claim to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as a legal standard then we should live it in our daily lives outside the legal system as well, otherwise we're just jaw jackin' and don't really believe it. Having said that, if there is a morals clause in a contract, then the should be upheld even if it is prior to, or absent of, any conviction. And I agree that it should be upheld equally.
    I suspect it's easy to make that sort of claim when you're not employing one guy who is all over the news for beating his wife and another for abusing his child. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the fairest way to conduct a trial, in my opinion, but I see no reason why that should be the standard for employment.

  2. #22
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by shavingcollywob View Post
    I suspect it's easy to make that sort of claim when you're not employing one guy who is all over the news for beating his wife and another for abusing his child. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the fairest way to conduct a trial, in my opinion, but I see no reason why that should be the standard for employment.
    But if we aren't willing to consider "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court law, then I seriously question our ability to live by that standard in a court of law... when it is critically important. It's a deeper mindset that isn't switched on and off at will.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #23
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    But if we aren't willing to consider "innocent until proven guilty" outside a court law, then I seriously question our ability to live by that standard in a court of law... when it is critically important. It's a deeper mindset that isn't switched on and off at will.
    I think people are capable of applying different standards in different situations and I doubt that anyone applies the standards of the courtroom in their daily life, including the lawyers and the judge.

    I suspect you're just playing Devils' Advocate
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #24
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,475

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    I picked other because I was answering the title of the OP.

    We, as the public, should not be punishing anybody.

    The punishment comes in the form of legal charges. Whatever happens from there is up to the courts.

  5. #25
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Ryan Rice, Adrian Peterson, someone else, take your pick. Goes for athletes, actors, politicians, anybody famous and/or in the public eye. Those who have allegedly done unacceptable acts to other people, and their heads are being called for. But slow down for a second... when **SHOULD** we be punishing people who do these things?

    1) Upon it becoming public knowledge.
    2) Upon indictment/charges filed.
    3) Upon conviction.
    4) Other

    Also, is consistency important? If we pick one of the above, should we be consistent for every incident? Or, does the presence of varying evidence (i.e.: video vs hearsay vs verbal accusation, etc.) make a difference?
    I picked other. The default should be upon a guilty conviction,however if there is a video of the incident in question of the individual confessed to doing the deed then there is no need to wait for a guilty conviction.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Personally, I like to see the evidence from both sides, but some stories don't have two sides. Take Ray Rice. Once I saw the video from the elevator, I don't care what his side is. What he did is wrong, and I don't have to wait for a trial to decide what I think of him
    And take Adrian Peterson. After seeing the pictures of what he did to a 4 year old, I don't care what his side is.

  7. #27
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    It doesn't seem to me that law-enforcement is an employer's responsibility. As long as an employee is doing the job he is being paid to do, to an acceptable degree, and not engaging in any on-the-job misconduct; that should generally be the extent of the employer's concern.

    If there are accusations that a person has committed a criminal act, then that's for the criminal justice system to address, in accordance with the standards by which this system is supposed to operate.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  8. #28
    Educator OnWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    04-07-16 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    710

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    In the Hyper-competitive league called the NFL, If #2 were all they needed to get rid of a guy then any team could simply hire someone to file charges against a star player and bam, the week you have to play a specific team, they could be without their star player.

    Take this as an example: X team was scheduled to play Y team 3 weeks from now, X team has a Star Quarterback that if he wasn't in the game, could seriously alter the outcome. Y team hires someone to file charges against X teams star quarterback, X team suspends their quarterback.

    Don't think it happens? who knows, but I strongly believe that no suspension / termination should happen until after said person is found guilty.

    In the event that the person in question decides to admit, or confess to the issue then it should be completely fine to move forward with disciplinary actions.

    Also, the Ray Rice situation is completely different in the way that we actually have video tape of him assaulting his fiance.
    Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
    - Abraham Lincoln

    Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

    God, how patient are Thy poor! These corporations and masters of manipulation in finance heaping up great fortunes by a system of legalized extortion,
    and then exacting from the contributors--to whom a little means so much--a double share to guard the treasure!
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

  9. #29
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I think people are capable of applying different standards in different situations and I doubt that anyone applies the standards of the courtroom in their daily life, including the lawyers and the judge.

    I suspect you're just playing Devils' Advocate
    To a certain degree, sure, but in a general sense I have long thought that we (generic 'we' as a society overall) are more hypocritical when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" then we realize. I tend to believe that when push comes to shove, we DON'T really believe in it, not even in court. It's just a noble-sounding sound bite.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    It doesn't seem to me that law-enforcement is an employer's responsibility. As long as an employee is doing the job he is being paid to do, to an acceptable degree, and not engaging in any on-the-job misconduct; that should generally be the extent of the employer's concern.

    If there are accusations that a person has committed a criminal act, then that's for the criminal justice system to address, in accordance with the standards by which this system is supposed to operate.
    And this is a fair point. Where is the legal system in all this? Why are we depending on an employer to do the right thing when the legal system won't?

    One might argue that the employer has to *because* the legal system won't, but it could also be argued that if the legal system doesn't deem it important maybe it isn't.

    A little bit of Devil's Advocate here, too, but with a bit of seriousness wrapped inside.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Lovebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,884

    Re: When SHOULD we punish famour people for their transgressions?

    Its a dilemma. How often have we a teacher being accused of abuse or a guy accused of rape, and it turns out to be a false accusation. So then we have the guys life ruined for what? Pettiness?
    How about the cop who shot someone? He will be placed on administrative leave until the investigation is over.
    What shall we do with a bank teller being accused of stealing? We can't keep him/her on the job, right?
    Football player, hard evidence or spousal abuse? Put him on leave, give him/them a chance to do counseling, let him and the wife hash it out.
    A football player whooping his kid? How many parents do that and aren't laid off from the job? Counseling may be the better choice here as well.
    This is not a one size fits all scenario. Common sense should prevail. I am all for innocent until proven guilty, and if found guilty, give them another chance still, depending on the circumstance.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •